I'm glad that someone spoke out against his comment. He might have meant well, and there is probably some truth in what he said, but single-parent families can have a hard enough time as it is without discrimination from do-gooders as well as the other sort. I am from a single-parent family, and Bitter Crank, I find your comments and others like yours very offensive. — Sapientia

Both my parents have been divorced. So you think that I should think that divorce is a good thing morally speaking? We must learn from other people's mistakes I believe. I understand that it must have been hard for you and your family at times. But don't you think that it would have been better for all of you if you could have grown in a two parent family? Not in your particular circumstances which I don't know, but generally speaking. If your parents both got along, and you grew up in a two parent family - how would you feel in regards to that?

Yes indeed. And the best protection is not to carry on living with the cancer, but to get a divorce. Not much point in punishing the cancer though. — unenlightened

Right - the best solution to being robbed by a thief is to get better protection for your home - forget punishing the thief. If we all thought like that, we'd still be in the stone age!

But I have adopted it. I am the injured party in this hypothetical, and you want to injure me further by punishing my other half. But more than that, if my partner shows that they do not want that unity with me, rationally or not, it is hurting myself to even demand that they should do so, and to institute punishment not only hurts me further, but invites us to live in a pretence of unity which does not exist and therefore cannot fulfill. — unenlightened

In medicine, there are quite a few conditions when the immune system turns against your own body. Multiple sclerosis is one such condition, which are often known as autoimmune conditions. Clearly in such cases it is justified to take aim at the immune system and do whatever is possible to stop the negative effect it has on the rest of the body.

There are cases in medicine, when your cells start going rogue. Then they multiply without limit - called cancer. In such a situation it is again right to take aim at your own body in order to put an end to this. Yes you will hurt yourself. But it's necessary for the greater good.

Same in this case. If your partner shows that they engage in activities which hurt you and your love relationship (adultery to be clear), then they have become like a cancer unto love. So love protects itself as best it can - in this case through the law.

It's good you recognise that - many other Marxists wouldn't. :) I disagree with you about religion for example but that's a story for another thread.

Actually not - that's an additional assumption you're making there. Namely that one must know the consequences of immorality in order to be moral. I don't think this is true. There's many people of little intelligence whom I know, who are more moral than some very intelligent folk I know, including the one I'm speaking to perhaps :D

Did I say they were? They're not - but it takes intelligence to see the consequences of immorality. Sure after you see the consequences, then you can still do the immoral thing - I don't disagree.

What should the punishment be for people who endorse legal punishment for adultery? — Sapientia

Even if you are a progressive, this is not a rational attitude to adopt. Several other progressives have already made this point.

But let us be clear. Punishment for adultery would protect me from the intentional harm caused me by person I want to be one with? And " If the other hurts, you hurt. But if you hurt, then the other also hurts ...", so you kindly instruct me. So the net effect is that I am to be hurt for hurting myself. Clearly I have gone wrong somewhere; I cannot believe you are advocating such abhorrent madness. — unenlightened

I never said it's rational for your partner to commit adultery. That's precisely the point! It's not rational. If they were acting rationally, then they wouldn't do that. If they did adopt the "if the other hurts, I hurt. If I hurt, the other hurts", then they would never do that. But they do it - that means they haven't adopted that - very simple.

Sir it is good I believe that people have more intelligence than this :)

The thread is about punishment for adultery. Punishment can only protect to the extent that it deters through fear. — unenlightened

Well hopefully this thread is for the dialogue I started with John to continue. Regardless of the somewhat unfortunate name of the thread, which I did not choose, it should be noted from the dialogue we were carrying in the other thread that "punishment for adultery" is only one of the minor and side issues we were discussing.

It is not a fact. Show me the statistics. — unenlightened

http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/cheating-statistics-do-men-cheat-more-women for example this. 70% for men, 50% for women in the US. The difference is much larger in parts of Europe. And by the way, you have no right to stomp your feet and demand statistics that you can look up for yourself.

But your counterfactual declaration is simply a pronouncement that sexism, and slavery are the natural state of man — unenlightened

There is no sexism in that sir. It's the same deal for both man and woman. What's sexist about it if I may ask? It's the same rule applied to both. Nothing can possibly be sexist in that. It's not different rules for each. It's the same.

My partner and I have been faithfully unmarried for 27 years during which we have brought up 4 children — unenlightened

Well I'm happy for you - but this isn't to say that this is a stable arrangement. It may have worked in your particular case - but that's all.

Punishment, and the threat of punishment is a form of coercion that has no place in a mutual relationship, and can only have a negative impact, sustaining a loveless and divided relation through fear. — unenlightened

It's not about threat of punishment, etc. It's about protecting people from being intentionally harmed by others.

I tell you what, why don't you make shit up about me and what people like me think, and argue with that instead of addressing my post? Oh, you already did. — unenlightened

I didn't make things up Sir. It's the implications of your statements.

You seem to have some abstract imaginations about what motivates monogamous marriage - namely that the desire to care only for one's offspring or some other looney thing. But this ignores a basic human experience - that of (1) raising children, and (2) that of love. Marriage creates an environment which is guaranteed and in which children can be raised. Love demands the union of two people for eternity - otherwise it is not worthy of being called love. As Kierkegaard said, even the poets refuse in disgust to celebrate any love which does not desire to be eternal. But for love to be eternal, it cannot swear on itself. It must swear on that which is higher - the eternal - God. And therefore it must swear on duty - so the two people accept willingly to be bound by duty - because that is what it takes to give their love eternity.

Look sir - you can think whatever you want - but it's wrong that you judge people based only on your experience. Statistics indicate that your positions - namely that monogamous marriage favors men - are wrong. It's the opposite sir, and it has been so through history. Imagine how badly women would have been treated - like expendable goods - if men did not have to commit to them. You are just refusing to see a basic fact of human existence in order to remain faithful to your ideology.

So you're just not going to bother with the very clear distinction that I made and you're just going to go on playing semantics? Whoopee! Well I suppose it keeps you from having to engage with the actual issues under discussion! Would it be better for you if I replaced 'criminal' with 'illegal' then? Or shall I just make something up. Speeding is "kersplutzabubble' whereas adultery is "fluddlepuddle", perhaps? — Barry Etheridge

I don't engage with it, because I don't care about such matters - honestly. I don't want to discuss whether adultery should be civil offence, or a penal offence, etc. These are details. If I was a politician I would hand this stuff to the lawyers for them to best decide how to legally handle it. They aren't even relevant to the conversation I was having with John. The question at most was whether adultery should be punishable - how it will be punishable is a matter for debate, a debate which I'm not interested in now. But to determine whether something should be punishable in some way X, it is enough to look at the effects of certain actions, and the place they have in the relationship between people.

I just stopped to correct a mistaken assumption that you were making about other countries, and that's all. I have no interest to go into a detailed discussion of this. You can read about US law (or Latvia's law, etc.) by yourself.

This time around, let's spend less time figuring out how to punish people who commit adultery and spend more time figuring out how to help families be successful. — Bitter Crank

I largely agree. I'm not interested to discuss the legality of adultery with John, so much so that I am morally horrified at his moral lack of concern for the victims of adultery - be they the spouse or the children. The fact that he finds it "ultra conservative" or other such pejorative label to even state publicly that adultery is morally wrong - that's what I have a problem with. I think the avenue you propose is more helpful.

Adultery in the context of the usual marriage vows is unhelpful, contradictory, and often destructive. What I consider important is that IF a heterosexual marriage leads to children, then the parents should endeavor to keep their relationship healthy and centered on raising healthy, productive and reasonably happy children. That means avoiding adultery, addictions, irresponsible debt, desertion, and the like. — Bitter Crank

Yes - but a marriage will lead to children, unless one of the partners is unable to have children perhaps. But even then adoptions are possible. And as for people getting married and not having children - that is very strange. Perhaps they shouldn't get married if they never plan to have children. They could still live together, etc. but why marry? Furthermore, what about the harm that adultery would do to the partner, not only to the children? It seems to me that adultery would be contradictory and destructive in any monogamous relationship where loyalty and sexual exclusivity exist, and where the intimacy between partners is important ie in a marriage. People can live together outside of marriage, and obviously there is no adultery there as such - except that obviously people will be harmed by cheating, less severely than in a marriage, but still harmed, in a way that is morally reprehensible - obviously though there would be no legal grounds to sanction this though. Nor can much be done to discourage it except what you said afterwards, which is to have strong families, which can educate people, and guide them away from the dangers of such lifestyles, leaving it ultimately to their choice after this.

to live within modest material budgets so that their resources can be directed toward good parenting.
to receive enough income that between them, parents can provide 1 FTE parent. Maybe families need to be subsidized to make that possible. Both mother and father should have time to interact with children.
education in good, traditional child-rearing practices. Many adults have not benefitted from being raised in a healthy large family and they simply do not know what healthy family life looks like. They need training to achieve it. And on-going support.
Families need good pre-natal health care, good delivery service, and post-natal followup health monitoring.
Families need functioning communities in which to live. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

Your proposals seem dangerously close to conservatism though BC :P How does a Marxist explain this?

Speeding, no matter what words are used to describe it or what the title of the particular law or order under which it is prohibited is therefore criminal. — Barry Etheridge

No - this isn't the case. In your country - the UK - you are correct. But for example in the US, speeding is not a crime. Neither is it a crime in many other places across Europe. Not all things which are prohibited by law are criminal.

Well, as you are apparently unwilling to reveal the identity of this strange 'plase' I suppose I'll have to take your word for it while retaining my right to extreme skepticism! — Barry Etheridge

There's nothing strange about it. In my country it is the same as for MU. You fail to differentiate between something which is penal, and something which is punishable by civil law. Speeding is punishable by civil law, but is not penal - at least in most cases. Killing someone is penal - it's in the penal code of your country - which is different than the civil code of your country.

Crimes are in the penal code. Offences are in the civil code. Crimes also generally involve punishments with or related to going to prison, whereas offences imply other sorts of punishment - such as fines, etc.

Marriage should be banned.

It is a form of enslavement, which the emphasis here given to adultery illustrates. It institutionalises the ownership of another, and has its roots in the male desire to support only the fruit of his own loins. Thus it encourages selfishness. is radically sexist, and treats women and children as chattels.

No one has the right to be loved cherished and obeyed for a lifetime, and such a clause in any other contract would be stuck down as unfair and unreasonable.

But love cannot anyway be subject to contract any more than a gift can be part of a trade. It is a nonsense that belittles the free relationship of people caring for each other. — unenlightened

Truly you bear your name :P Read Kierkegaard's Works of Love - maybe you'll learn something about it (namely that duty is a sanctification of love), and remove that "un" from your name ;) . Owning each other is exactly what love is. Just like the Communists wanted ownership of property in common, two lovers want ownership of each other in common - and they want their love to be eternal. They don't want to be two people - they want to be one with each other. For eternity - this is just what they want.

As for your counterfactual assertions about women and children - that's totally false. First of all, sanctions for adultery have benefited women much more than men. This is a fact. Just look at the statistics. If marriage didn't exist, 1000 years ago, women would have been chattel. Men would have had sex with them, and thrown them away - out, into the street. They would just take the children. That's the condition women would have lived in without marriage. This is nothing other than progressive liberal propaganda - which is counterfactual - very important.

Ideologues like you, fail to see that you shall love your neighbour as yourself! You want to love your neighbor more than yourself - that's why you say it's selfishness to listen to your own desires. But this is false. Being one with someone means, that just like your liver does not forget its own needs while in collaboration with the rest of your body, so too, you do not forget your self in collaboration with others, whether in a love relationship, or in a community. It's about giving equal priority to yourself and to the other person. If the other hurts, you hurt. But if you hurt, then the other also hurts - which you seem to forget.

Not to mention that your whole post is a failure to acknowledge the fair and normal desire for another, which is found in most human beings. What you promote is not love - but a moral abomination.

Let me summarise what happened in a more comprehensive manner. First it is to be noted that @John is not just against not sanctioning adultery legally - and the conversation never started from a discussion of legally sanctioning adultery, as I will illustrate. We were discussing the effects of mystics claiming they have become God. I gave as examples Osho Rajneesh, and Jiddu Krishnamurti:

No those "doctrinal" differences have practical significance. Becoming God can very easily be associated with anything being permitted for you. Like Osho Rajneesh having promiscuous sex with his disciples. Or poisoning a community. Or Krishnamurti having sex with one of his friend's wife behind his back, and having her have an abortion. — Agustino

To which John replied:

I'm going to be blunt here: I think you are transforming yourself into a self-righteous fool.
This is all just malicious unsubstantiated gossip, unless you can show clear evidence for those claims about Osho and Krishnamurti . And again, even if those claims were true; so what? No man is perfect. — John

Then Wayfarer and myself actually gave John the evidence - to which of course he never replied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lives_in_the_Shadow_with_J._Krishnamurti — Wayfarer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack — Agustino

But he did continue with the pejorative counterfactual insults:

self-righteous purism — John

self-righteous fool — John

fossilization of the arch-conservatives — John

someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing — John

The other point was about church dogma, and ultra-conservative fundamentalist interpretations thereof; which I think you are guilty of — John

I tried to remedy these biases and explain to John:

LOL! It's laughable if you think my interpretation are ULTRA-conservative FUNDAMENTALIST. Really - I can't be bothered to answer such nonsense. First of all fundamentalism... have I claimed the Earth was created a few thousand years ago? Have I claimed Christianity is the only way? Have I claimed evolution is wrong? No. So please get your concepts straight. Just because you don't like conservatives doesn't mean you get to throw with pejorative statements. There is a long, and respectable tradition in all religions. That isn't ultra conservative. That's just the wisdom that was passed through the ages. — Agustino

Again, as I see things, you are just adopting liberal and progressive prejudicies without thinking about it. You are never even questioning them. You think saying adultery is wrong is ultra conservative. Hell - even saying sex before marriage is wrong isn't ultra conservative. Those are things that people have believed for most parts of history, and in most societies. Ultra-conservative are reactionary movements - such as Puritanism. There's a difference between the two. Apparently you don't think there is. — Agustino

It is also significant to state that John mentioned adultery first:

But in the realm of ethics, because each one of us is a unique individual there will always be nuances in unique situations, such that it cannot be right to make blanket moral pronouncements such as "divorce is wrong", "adultery is wrong", "homosexuality is wrong" and other like ultra-conservative dictatorial claims such as the ones you make on these forums. — John

but it will not do to prosecute and punish people for transgressing what are merely moral injunctions — John

To which I replied:

Of course. That's why social means and social pressure is used to combat those. Although maybe some immoral things ought to also be illegal - say adultery. But that is a different debate. — Agustino

For you, Orthodoxy is ultra-conservative. That's false. It is historically false to say the least. Adultery is wrong means it is harmful. Always. That's not ultra conservative. Please go research what ultra conservative is. Or read the article I have read just yesterday http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ — Agustino

To this - which notice has to do with the morality of adultery, and NOT its legality, John replies:

I'm sorry to say it Agustino, but I find most of what you say highly disagreeable, even repugnant.

I cannot see anything in it that persuades me you would be open in the slightest to any alternative reason on these matters, so I feel no inclination to engage with you further; it would it seems just be a complete waste of time. Good luck with your life, man... — John

Of course one is surprised at such a reaction - especially as it had been John the one who has consistently ignored the evidence provided, consistently attempted to say that Orthodox tradition had no mystics, consistently trying to say or insinuate that Orthodoxy is totalitarian, and consistently refusing to accept his incorrect readings of the Bible - which he has started to even call "creative misreading". So I have to inquire why - this is about the morality of adultery here - he apparently is so disgusted if a husband beats his wife - but he is not disgusted at all if the same husband were to cheat on his wife! In fact - if someone dares to label this latter act as immoral, he is suddenly catalogued as "ultra-conservative" - forget the legality issue - this is bigger than that. Here is a man who is opposed to morally condemning adultery! So to this John continues with the same dogmatic propaganda and insults:

Beating someone up is an act of aggression pure and simple, it is in no way analogous to adultery, as you are suggesting it is. The committing of adultery could be as a result of a whole range of diversely variant circumstances. Perhaps the relationship is not good, they are not really attracted to one another physically, perhaps the one who commits adultery (does that consist in 'being an adult', by the way? ;) ) has difficulty controlling sexual desires, perhaps s/he has fallen in love with the person s/he commits it with, perhaps husband and wife share an agreement to live in an 'open' relationship. Will you punish people in all these very different circumstances? The way you frame the whole question is very male-centric, by the way. It wouldn't surprise me if you believe that men are naturally superior to women and that they should, in line with your beloved traditional values, rule the household. — John

Notice his flippancy - as if any of these (apart from the open relationship claim) is a justification for adultery - somehow if these things are the case, according to the Gospel of Liberal Progressive John, it becomes at least less immoral to commit adultery! Furthermore, I have explained to him by pointing to statistics that men cheat more often than women, and women are more likely to be negatively affected by adultery. And yet of course John ignores it. He doesn't even retract his false accusation that morally condemning adultery is a case of patriarchal control over a woman's sexuality - while the truth, as shown by the facts, is quite literarily the opposite. If anyone is controlled by having adultery be immoral, then it is much moreso men than women. Through the rest of the thread, which did descend into a discussion of the legality of adultery, I kept being appalled by the pure and irrational unquestioning dogma of John, which he has repeatedly tried to enforce on others.

I don't mind questioning for example whether tradition is important or not. Certainly you never brought the question up. I don't mind discussing the importance of authority in religion or in society - but again you never brought that up. You take your liberal principles as a priori truth, and aren't even willing to discuss them, much less question them. You consider them holy truth, and disgusting to even dare to question them! In fact principles which are different are emotionally repugnant to you. But hey - each to their own! — Agustino

OK, having said that I don't want to indulge in slanging matches; I'll try to address what you write here, without doing that. It's true that I have characterized some of what you have written as "prozelytization" and "self-righteousness", and that's because that's just what I perceive when someone speaks about "making adultery illegal" and such like. If someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing statements then they are, by virtue of that and to that degree at least, self-righteous prozelytizers. Beyond that I have not indulged, as far as I can remember, in ad hominen characterizations of your personality, as the part I underlined above certainly shows you to be doing in regard to what you purport to be my personality. — John

This is in contra-distinction to other progressives who intervened and discussed their views politely - without insulting - such as AndrewK.

Now the really important bits:
1. John finds it repugnant to condemn adultery, even in a moral sense. He doesn't find it equally repugnant to condemn violence, or theft - even though quite often adultery produces MORE HARM than these. In fact, even some progressives in the thread in question have recognised that adultery is "most often" harmful.
2. John doesn't care about the nuclear family as he seemingly tries to fake in this thread:

As to such things as the breakdown of the family: I am not sure the nuclear family is necessarily the best model — John

3. John is dogmatic, and insulting about his assertions. He demands that it be as he says it is, while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. All the arguments and statements he has made have been refuted - they are factually wrong. He - and not anyone else - is in fact totalitarian.
4. John has failed to answer what bothers him, or any hypothetical person, about adultery being made illegal - does he plan to commit it? If a man doesn't plan to commit adultery, why would he be bothered by the legality of it?! At worst, he would be indifferent. If he is bothered by it, clearly something is taken away from him (or from others) by such a law - what is it, except the freedom to commit adultery which is precisely under the question?
5. John has repeatedly tried to insinuate that a law against adultery is the dissolution of private life - yet he has failed to realise that for most people private life isn't for committing adultery, and if it was, then it should rightly be abolished.
6. John has repeatedly failed to acknowledge that harmfulness of adultery, and continued to insist in the apologetics he provided for it. I would not be surprised if in his life John has committed or wants to commit adultery - certainly nothing else could justify such dogmatism. It is understandable if one thinks that adultery shouldn't be criminalised - like some of the people in the other thread - but they recognise that this is only their opinion, and not the only one which can claim to being reasonable. However - to seek to impose this by threat of ridicule through slanderous statements is intellectually dishonest.
7. John has never addressed the core of the argument
a) Adultery is a long-term, serious, unreperable harm that is done to someone - a harm that will follow them their whole life.
b) Adultery is both a breach of consent and contract, and also a direct harm - a harm which doesn't stop just with breaching a contract - it causes profound spiritual and emotional torment, and excites the most violent, rapacious, and destructive emotions, combining anger, hatred, disgust, jealousy, and much more.
c) People have a right to be protected from being intentionally harmed by others.
d) Therefore: is at least necessary to condemn adultery very strongly from a moral point of view - as has been done by virtually all religions - and quite possibly to instantiate a legal punishment for it. This is not in agreement with John's lacking morality, which prefers to see innocent people suffer at the hands of their oppressors and sees such suffering as normal and part of life, which is much more like the attitude exemplified 100 years ago by slave owners. It certainly doesn't justify John feeling it "repugnant" to morally condemn adultery. And it certainly doesn't justify his dogmatic attitude about the legality of adultery. This quite possibly also justifies a legal punishment for adultery - although the argument isn't proof for this, but merely indication that it may be good to have such a punishment - this means there is nothing "ultra-conservative" about it, and it is a perfectly acceptable position to hold.

His point is that given these 'outs' people should be held accountable before the law if they breach what he claims is the legally binding contract of marriage. — John

You should specify the harm they can cause to their partner, and the nature of the harm - namely long-term harm, which is not reparable or in any other way amenable.

in (at least Western) societies where adultery was/ is punishable, divorce (except perhaps notably for men in Islamic societies), was/is usually not an option — John

This is not true. In most Western countries divorce became legally possible before adultery was made legally permissible.

Also, due to the fact that many marriages were arranged in traditional societies; it would not be surprising if many people found themselves in marriages which were not satisfying. — John

Many people? Justify this please.

I contend that this is a self-contradictory set of aims because legal enforcement of marriage vows would result in even less people marrying. — John

Good! Those people shouldn't get married in the first place. The point is to protect those who are interested to get married, with everything that marriage entails, and sexual loyalty and exclusivity is one of the entailments of marriage in MOST people's minds - because you so love to throw around this word. If they're not interested in marriage, they can just go ahead and live together, form a civic partnership, etc. Marriage should not be degraded so that we get more people marrying - these people would form terrible marriages anyway - and set terrible examples for everyone else too!

because the most plausible result would be that even less people would want to be married in this new kind of 'ultra-traditional' way — John

First of all - there's nothing "ultra" about it. You throw around these pejorative labels, but there's nothing ultra in there. It's simply traditional. Do you have a problem with tradition? Do you have a problem with respecting traditions? Most people who have ever lived have had similar traditions. You of course ignore that all major religions, without exception, condemn adultery in harsh and explicit manners - and this includes non-Abrahamic religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. There's nothing "ultra" about this proposal - there is something very "ultra-radical" about your proposal perhaps. But that's another story, one that I'm not very interested to explore, because it has nothing to do with the essence of this conversation. I have no need to derail this conversation to score meaningless victories over you - it's about the ideas, and what should be done - not what was done. If we play by what was done, then you've already lost. Second of all, it's about protecting people who want to marry and who want their marriage vows to be respected. They have a right to be protected. This is more important than "less people would want to be married" - I am not concerned whether they want to be married or not - that is irrelevant.

The other point of contention between Agustino and myself in regard to this issue is that I fail to see how instituting something as law that arguably very few people would want to live subject to, could possibly reinforce the stability of society. This is a point which, so far, Agustino has utterly failed to address. — John

Do you happen to have a short memory? :)

This is again liberal propaganda. Most people don't know how bad the cheating statistics are. Most people are not aware that this is a problem. Most people don't know that it's quite likely that this will happen to them. That's why by the time they age, most people will agree with me. So you're wrong - it's not an extreme minority. And if you look through history, you will be surprised to see that most people who have ever lived in fact agree with me. All religions - without exception, be they Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism - all of them have rules against adultery. Do you think all those people were idiots, and you're the only smart person? — Agustino

I hope others will share the burden and rally to the virtuous cause of setting him right on this matter, even if only for his own sake. — John

There is nothing virtuous in gleefully enjoying other people being hurt and seeing their lives ruined. Maybe for you that is virtue - certainly not for me.

Now - the rest of your post is filled with counterfactuals. Such as most people don't care about marriage vows, most people don't want their vow of fidelity and sexual exclusivity to be respected, or don't care too much about it, and other such nonsense. I will not address this. My next post will address what matters - your OP addressed everything probably except the truly important matters.

1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred? — saw038

Impossible to say.

2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them? — saw038

Impossible to say.

Option 3: The resurrection of Jesus is a component of faith - faith in the written testimony found in the Bible. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and walked again - by faith. I'm not too concerned about things that I cannot know - how this happened, what was the mechanism, whether there is undeniable proof of it etc. It's called faith for a reason.

And before anyone hackles with this - remember, you want to know. I don't. Knowing won't bring me bread tomorrow. Neither will it help me treat others more fairly, or make society more just, nor yet improve the condition of my soul. But I do want to believe. Why? Well I find it to be a very beautiful story - as I said before, the most beautiful that can be told. It inspires me - it does improve the condition of my soul. And that's that.

Why not creative misreading that seeks to salvage an otherwise obsolete tradition or text? — Hoo

Personally I don't think Stoicism is "obsolete" :)

Awareness if death only scares the traditionalist because it takes away the necessity of their way of life. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Doesn't scare me. I have good hope and faith in the Divine. As Socrates said, either it's sleep, or it's a continuation. I hope it's a continuation, and I pray to die hoping so - for it is better to hope for the best and be deceived than to hope for nothing and be correct ;)

Having said that, I would obviously face some anxiety if I was to know I would die soon - I mean I want to live, I think there's a lot of good things I can do on this Earth. But some things are not under our control - so I can't do much about that. The time that has been granted me has been granted, that which hasn't been granted, hasn't. One must obey.

Awareness if death only scares the traditionalist because it takes away the necessity of their way of life. Future generations have a different identity to you. On going culture and tradition is ultimately in their hands. They may well choose to abandon the tradtion you love much. One's one identity ceases to be the master of the world. Other people continue, not your own identity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I would hope they maintain the order that is required for them to achieve fulfilment here on Earth. But as soon as I exit this world, I exit it - it doesn't concern me in a direct way.

The insistence otherwise is a selfish act-- where one covets their life so much, that they do not accept their end and the existence of other people. They try to say they aren't really dead, that they have been reincarnated within the lives of others. It's fear of death which has someone claiming the dreams of other people are their own. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree.

Weirdly enough the idea of "you die, and that's that" was quite comforting to believe, until my friend and Watts ruined that one for me :P — WhiskeyWhiskers

The reincarnation one is more, or less comfortable to believe then? :P


I concur Sir.

Hah! So discouraging all these folks. Look friend. If you want you can study philosophy, but do take into account what these people say, and prepare yourself. Learn some other skills. Learn programming at the same time. Or start writing articles and commentary on current issues. Send them to different magazines or online publishing places. Keep a blog. Learn to trade stocks. Learn painting, and produce artworks. Sell them and advertise them online. Etc. Learn things which can earn you a living without being stuck in a 9-5 job, which will give you time for doing philosophy. That means learn things which will be practically helpful or useful to someone else. Start small. Aim for 100 USD. That's what I aimed to make in a month when I quit my job - I ended up making about 10 times that the first month, and 20-25 times that ever since for about 2 months so far.

Those people advising you to get a specific degree because the job will pay great - that is very foolish. Not because you want to follow your passion though. Simply because there's no point in being a slave - and regardless what degree you do, you will end up a slave if that's all you do. Any job you take, you'll end up like a slave - in fact those bigger and better paying jobs - the bigger and heavier your chains will be. Not because you will actually work a lot - but because they will make you engage in a lot of activities which are useless, time-wasteful, make you go to lots of places, attend all sorts of pointless events, etc. . Most people probably do only 50% of the time useful work. The rest is messing around. I've started to grow a strong dislike for people who want to work in large corporations - nothing is more anti-thetical to a good life than submerging yourself in that superficial, competitive, lazy, and selfish environment.

So believe in yourself. Study and develop your own aptitudes and talents. And then have confidence in whatever you do. Demand to work on your terms from people who are interested in whatever you do. Refuse work if it's not on your terms. And so forth. I used to work as an engineer. I have an engineering degree too. I quit my job a few months ago (to be more exact 3 months ago). And I'm working by myself today as a web-developer - which I've learned by studying it and running my own sites by myself for a couple of years. I'm cashing in the equivalent of 25K/year monthly so far but I'm working probably less than 4 hours a day from my own house. If I wanted to, I could make a lot more if I spent more time. But Im not in a hurry - I have quite a bit saved up too. I prefer spending much more time reading and learning new things. Some people get a philosophy degree, and then they earn as much as I currently do working in academia on research that they don't truly care about, and they work 60+ hours a week with no time for studying what they're truly passionate about. I work less than 28 hours, from home, at my own pace, and under my own standards, and earn as much as they do.

The problem is to get where I got, you have to study - and work - and teach yourself skills. Learn how to make yourself valuable. Look after clients. Phone people up, etc. Whatever it takes. Most people aren't willing to go through that anxiety, nor through the time, loneliness, and hard-work. They want an easy life - go to a job, where they don't do much, finish at a fixed time, forget about work (no studying/learning after their work is done) etc. They give away their freedom for comfort. But freedom should never be given away - because if you give your freedom away, sooner or later you will have renounced your comfort too! People should be encouraged to develop their own skills, and become financially independent of the big, large companies. In fact, our whole economy should be restructured to offer and encourage small-scale independent producers. That's what real financial independence is about - having freedom, not having a lot of dough. And we're making a big mistake when we think that the large companies are efficient - they actually are not, at least from my experience working for a large construction company. They are very inefficient, and their people are very lazy, and they don't truly care about what they do - they just want that clock to move faster so that they can leave. They do work - but it's not outstanding work, it's inefficient work. Going through the motions as many have said. (Oh but I forgot to say that they have 20 million people to check each other's jobs afterwards... had they been efficient to begin with, they may not have needed that)

LOL - you know actually I think that this type of answer (the one I quoted previously) is the politically correct one in today's world. We don't want to tell the poor guy he's going to die, all his hopes and dreams, the things he liked, etc. are going to vanish - so we tell him he will reincarnate except that nothing will carry over during that reincarnation >:O - let's hope he doesn't ask what reincarnates!

At the risk of sounding less helpful, it's like perpetual reincarnation, except there is nothing carried over from one life to the next that could be considered that same person (because the person dies with the body). After you die, there's another in the succession of first person personal experiences. The same sort of experience as when you were born. After you die, other people are born. — WhiskeyWhiskers

In other words: you die, and that's that >:O

Okay thanks for clarifying. I do think philosophy should be practical - hence why many such considerations I feel are not so significant when we really get busy living!

If one imagines that when a being is reborn, the body of the baby they become is rather like a suit of clothes(a vehicle of incarnation). During the beings life they attach experiences to the suit like badges, or stylistic details. These badges are like the personality of the being shaped by experience and learning. When the being dies they leave behind the suit and get a new one and in the next life they attach new badges. The being has not changed, it is the same person, but wearing a different suit. All the suits are the same to begin with and all beings are the same, that is you, or me. It is only the badges of the personality where there is variation. — Punshhh

Okay - but I find the idea that all these beings are the same, there is no difference between them, highly suspect. In what sense does a being change suit if it brings nothing with it into the next suit? If that's the case, this is pragmatically equivalent to there being just the suit with no being.

Nietzsche's interpretation is clearly not the one that Plato suggests in Phaedo though. Socrates wanted to ask the gods to aid him in his journey from this world to the next world. Hence the Asclepius comment, which referred to the God of healing and medicine.

Look what Watts is saying is true in a very abstract sense. But it's not in any way true that "the real me" or "the real you" is the whole of existence. Sure the whole of existence is our ground - that which gives rise to the movement we call us. But how do we go from here to ignoring our particular existence? We clearly don't exist as "the whole of existence" - we exist as us. I don't have access to what you're thinking for example - regardless of how hard I try. I am "forced" to exist as me, and as no one else until I die. As Voltaire's Candide replied: "Yes, but we must still cultivate our garden" . The fact that I am the whole of existence changed absolutely nothing. All the problems and issues of life are left intact, exactly as they were prior to this gnosis.

I'm not speaking 'historically'. I'm talking about a bare underlying idea that runs through some parts of these different philosophies. Like I said in another post, there are going to be many differences in the details, but I think there's something there that is worth considering, and makes sense to me. Going on about identity after death is a red herring as to what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with it and that wasn't what I was referring to. Whether people had those anxieties or not has little to no bearing on my idea. — WhiskeyWhiskers

What is the purpose of your idea then? What does it aim to do? If it's just to inform us that existence keeps on existing, and other people will keep being born and feeling that they are an "I" just like we did, sure, but that's just trivially true.

Very well then, John or anyone else interested to reply from now on can open a new thread - I finished my reply above already.

Anyway, that's going quite far from what Watt's said himself, but I think there is a 'grand unifying theory' of many different philosophies (including pessimism, Buddhism, determinism, some form of idealism, Stoicism, Christianity, neo-Platonism, philosophy of time, and every-day understandings of death and the self) to be found somewhere in my ramblings. — WhiskeyWhiskers

This is most certainly not true historically speaking.

As regards the general gist of your statement, I will say this. Most people never doubted that existence itself continues after they die (and hence others are born, etc.). Their concern was exactly the preservation of their identity - their habits, their ideas, their way of being, their character, and their particular features. They always were concerned whether this identity keeps on existing - to say "no it doesn't, but the rest of existence keeps on existing" is irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything. It's a denial of one's own self. Just as absurd as saying that killing yourself will cure your headaches!

Like Socrates, I think it is better to hope in an afterlife - and hope is the most we can have in this life. We're going to die anyway, might as well die with hope and gladness in our hearts.

Many conservatives are Christian, and don't you think that even most of those would think that the punishment of God suffices in cases which are merely moral, as opposed to criminal, transgressions. Society as such is not critically threatened by even widespread moral transgressions (as it would be by widespread criminal transgressions); it is only a certain very particular (and I would say extremely conservative) conception of how society should be that could rightly think itself to be threatened. — John

This is not true. Every Christian (really, here one should write RELIGIOUS - because all religions are against adultery) man and woman deserve to have their marriage vows protected by law against unlawful transgressions such as adultery. The possibility of divorce is there precisely to enable people to leave marriage without committing adultery.

This is in line with the 'culture of consent' i.e. the only criterion for ethical worth in sexual relationships is consent and mutual enjoyment, the only constraint being not to compel. There are no duties towards marriage, as such, beyond individual consent — Wayfarer

The thing is, that this matter doesn't even have to do with this. Individual consent IS broken during adultery. The problem is that some are so attached to a sin, they don't even want to admit the significant harm it causes. At least @andrewk was honest and recognised it is very often harmful.

One is intentional harm and the other is not — John

Any action performed knowing that it would harm someone is intentional harm, regardless of the presence of other motivational factors.

So, it's OK with you if people choose to live in open marriages? — John

Morally no - they're harming each other. Legally I can't do anything about it - if they want to harm each other, and agree to this mutually, there's nothing the law can do about it, just like one can't prevent another from committing suicide if they really want to.

I haven't said anything about different circumstances being "justifications for harming someone" — John

Evidently that's what they end up being.

It appears you're OK with divorce then? — John

Morally no - they're harming each other (or if they're not, then they've acted foolishly - like for example by carelessly choosing the wrong partner). But because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus said, and in order to avoid adultery and any other such foolishness, it is better that they divorce.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire — Jesus Christ

Sometimes people transgress the agreements between them, even vows that they might have made (vows. no doubt, often made without proper intent, and perhaps just for superficial reasons of following what have become empty traditions) — John

They shouldn't get married. Very simple.

Are you advocating for the total abolition of private life? — John

Wow - outlawing adultery is the total abolition of private life. I never knew that committing adultery is all that people do in their private lives - or even what they want to do... If that's what private life is for, then it should rightly be abolished.

The law has no business interfering in people's personal lives and punishing individuals for transgressions against others in virtue of agreements they may have made, unless there is substantial resultant loss or injury to one party. — John

That's why if I visit your house and take 5 dollars it's a big deal and the police intervenes right? But if you cheat on your wife and ruin her marriage - no big deal, no substantial loss there. Just check the number on violence, crime, or self-harm that's resulting out of adultery please, before stating that there is no substantial loss. There is a very substantial loss - someone is cheated out of a very important, life-long agreement, not to mention the impact on third parties like children and families.

If you would truly advocate this kind of thing then you would be in an extreme minority, along with Muslims who advocate sharya law and honour killings and the like. — John

This is again liberal propaganda. Most people don't know how bad the cheating statistics are. Most people are not aware that this is a problem. Most people don't know that it's quite likely that this will happen to them. That's why by the time they age, most people will agree with me. So you're wrong - it's not an extreme minority. And if you look through history, you will be surprised to see that most people who have ever lived in fact agree with me. All religions - without exception, be they Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism - all of them have rules against adultery. Do you think all those people were idiots, and you're the only smart person?

this is far more egregious; it is a matter of democracy versus fascism. — John

No, not at all. There's nothing undemocratic about outlawing adultery and protecting people who are unlawfully and cruelly harmed, in ways that they cannot undo or remedy. There is in fact something very fascist about gleefully enjoying the state of people being harmed and having their lives ruined.

Yes, but it always comes down to what is good for the individuals that form a community. The more individuals in any community feel that they are living a good life in their community, then the better it is for the community. Sure you might argue that some ultra-fascist community might be incredibly stable and last for millenia by total subjugation of the wills of its citizens; but that is highly unlikely because people will not tolerate severe oppression for too long, And even if it were possible; it would be a matter of the welfare of the community, seen just in itself apart from its members, and who would say that it is desirable? What good could an ultra-stable community that did not benefit its members be? It can equally be said that out of individuality arises community. It is a symbiosis. But the important thing is that is the welfare of all the individuals that make up any community that matters most, — John

This misses the point. I'm not ISIS, nor is conservatism fascism. So please read up on your terms, and don't strawman. You repeatedly and pejoratively throw around labels - this is inadmissible in an intellectual circle. You should know the difference between conservatism and fascism - if you don't, please read up on it before you comment. Adultery being illegal is NOT an extreme position - in fact it's a position that has been very commonly adopted through human history as a moral position. Given mankind's history, adultery NOT being illegal is a much more radical and extremist position. But unlike you I don't get involved in such silly squabble. Ideas are to be discussed on their own merits. And it seems that you're refusing to acknowledge that adultery is a serious problem that can seriously hurt people in long-lasting and irredeemable ways. Much more it seems that you have a problem with decent people who are outraged by this harm - and just like the slave owners 100 years ago, you think it just that people ought to continue to be abused and accept it, without the possibility of defending themselves.

And if you think most people would disagree living in a state which punishes them for hurting each other - by God - there is something absurd in that. If you're an honest and decent man okay, and you want to get married. Why would you be concerned about if there is a punishment for adultery or if there isn't? Do you plan on cheating? If you do, then yes, you should be very afraid. But if you don't, why would you be afraid? Why would you be bothered by such a regulation? Clearly - the only case in which you (or anyone else) would be bothered is if you want to cheat - pure and simple. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. The only question is "do you want to cheat?". If the answer is yes, then it is terrible for adultery to be illegal. If you don't want to cheat, at worst, it is indifferent to you if adultery is illegal or not. There's nothing more and nothing less to be said on this - a man who is so bothered by making adultery illegal clearly feels something of value is taken away from him. What could this be except the freedom to commit adultery, which is exactly what is under the question?

know quite a lot about a relationship to know that adultery causes suffering — andrewk

I agree with you that adultery is often, possibly even usually, a harm — andrewk

These two don't work very well together. I think "quite a lot" is an exaggeration. I would agree one needs to know at least something about the relationship, but not "quite a lot".

Another difference is that generally adultery only causes harm if the cuckolded party knows of it. — andrewk

That's like saying HIV causes harm only if you know about it or have symptoms. This is false. The virus can live in your body causing harm for 10 years until you have any symptoms. That doesn't mean that after 5 years of having it you're not harmed. Only that you're not aware of what? Of the harm. The virus is slowly attacking your T-cells, whether you are aware of this or not. Or it's like someone has stolen my wallet but I'm not aware of it as I haven't checked my pocket. If you ask me later, when have I been harmed, I will not say "when I checked my pocket" - I will say "when I was robbed". Same in adultery. So it's not an excuse to say "Oh they don't know, therefore no one is harmed" - people are harmed, it's just that they don't know about it.

despite being one of those dreaded Progressives — andrewk

Personally, I am opposed to the criminalisation of adultery — andrewk

I can see that :D

Beating someone up is an act of aggression pure and simple, it is in no way analogous to adultery, as you are suggesting it is — John

It's an act which harms someone. Same with adultery, the only difference is that one is physical harm and the other emotional/spiritual. You seem to ignore that very important commonality.

Perhaps the relationship is not good, they are not really attracted to one another physically, perhaps the one who commits adultery (does that consist in 'being an adult', by the way? ;) ) has difficulty controlling sexual desires, perhaps s/he has fallen in love with the person s/he commits it with, perhaps husband and wife share an agreement to live in an 'open' relationship. — John

Leaving aside the open marriage situation, these reasons you provide - are they justifications for harming someone? If those reasons are the case there exists divorce. Certainly not adultery.

The way you frame the whole question is very male-centric, by the way. It wouldn't surprise me if you believe that men are naturally superior to women and that they should, in line with your beloved traditional values, rule the household. — John

Funny - statistically men cheat more often than women. Also statistically women are harmed by infidelity more frequently than men. This is exactly the liberal bias you have that Im talking about. You think sexual morality is a male invented tool to control women. That's exactly the liberal progressive propaganda. While the facts are quite possibly the other way around, as statistics widely illustrate.

Of course individuals exist; and each individual is responsible for their acts, both morally and before the law. If there were no individuality or individual freedom then logically there could be no personal responsibility, either. It's true that traditions that you are brought up within to a certain degree "form and shape...who you are" but they certainly do not totally determine it; again, to say that is to abolish the notion of personal moral responsibility. To the degree that we are merely shaped by our traditions, then what we become is not the result of reason and the kind of personal growth that results from real conscious spiritual work. — John

I only meant that individuality is not primary - community is. Out of community arises individuality.

And of course they probably will, and should be, held to account for any acts, which sufficiently transgress the law or what is morally acceptable in their own culture, that their moral ,religious or philosophical beliefs may lead them to commit. — John

Please clarify what you're implying here.

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. — Samuel Beckett

:D

In themselves, rights are an infinite — TheWillowOfDarkness

Given by who?? Rights don't exist out there flying in the sky!

someone produces self-righteous prozelytizing — John

Why is thinking that adultery should be legally punished in some form "self-righteous prozelytizing" and something like thinking that a husband beating his wife should be punished legally is NOT "self-righteous prozelytizing"? Do you have some special love for adultery, or what is it, when it comes to sexual harm, that you treat it so differently from other forms of harm? Really... people are rightfully outraged if say a husband beats his wife. All good in that. But if the same husband were to commit adultery on his wife - suddenly no one is outraged - people even find it funny and interesting to hear, and if someone were to be outraged then he is an ultra-conservative fundamentalist. What is it about sexual sins that makes them different from other sins which harm other people - if not for the selfish liberal propaganda that you can do whatever you want with your body? Look this is all propaganda - this has nothing to do with ethics or morality - it's in fact the contrary of ethics and morality - the care of self and of other.

but the person need not be directly concerned with the politics of influencing others, and much less would she need to be concerned with the politics of determining exactly what others are to think and do in regards to particular issues. — John

Man is a social animal. Being a social animal entails that one's happiness depends, at least in part, on other people. It would be foolish not to be interested or concerned with what others do - given that your own well-being also depends on it - because you are not an atom. This is exactly the point that Plato and Aristotle made so long ago - which is why they devoted their lives to teaching other people, and encouraging them towards virtue, because they realised that virtue is the requirement that leads to both individual and social fulfilment. If social harmony doesn't exist, then the individual will be frustrated in his aims, and neither will be happy. Our duties to one another are more important than our rights from one another - and this is the conservative point. That's why obedience is, as per Roger Scruton, the prime political virtue. Other people matter - you're not the only one who matters. It's not all about your desires and what you want - it's first of all about not hurting others.

This has meant that mystics that adhered (at least outwardly) to the Roman Catholic tradition, had to be very careful about what they said. This has obviously also been the case with men of science and Giordano Bruno (who was both a hermetic mystic and a man of science) is a striking case in point. — John

This is only partly true - not all mystics were condemned as heretical. Pseudo-Dionysius is one of the most important mystics - he was the first author St. Thomas Aquinas studied as a monk - how do you think this was possible? Clearly because the Church appreciated the mystical teaching. Furthermore, the Eastern Orthodox tradition has accepted mystics from the very beginning - starting from the Desert Fathers.

But traditions are there to be creatively used by individuals for self-education, development and inspiration; individuals are not there for traditions to use or dictate to, in the name, and for the interests, of authorities or powers, or to repress and subjugate under the aegis of orthodox totalitarian ideologies. — John

Individuals don't exist. No one is born an individual. You get your individuality from a tradition. Tradition forms and shapes you into who you are. The sense of self is emergent, and it depends on your community, by which it is created and sustained. Individuals are not atoms flying all alone, who live in society just for ensuring their survival. We are social animals - we depend on society.

orthodox totalitarian ideologies. — John

Orthodoxism isn't totalitarian. ISIS is totalitarian. There's a big difference between what ISIS does, and what the Catholic Church does.

And again, underlined here is another example of a presumptuous and unwarranted characterization of my philosophical stance and personal aims; which it seems is based on the fact, that given your own preoccupation with politics, you seem to automatically assume that others must be (or at least should be?) motivated in like manner. — John

My apologies, but it does seem to me, even now, that there is some liberal bias in your thinking, which you have picked up from society. I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get. But indeed, you are not a liberal in the traditional sense of the term, so my apologies for that.

The past exists for us, not us for the past. The desire to freeze time is the desire for "undeath" or "unlife." — Hoo

The idea that we don't have a duty to the past is wrong I think. If it wasn't for the past, we wouldn't exist as we exist. Therefore we owe it to the past, which entails that we have a duty towards it. The past is not there for us to use however we see fit. Society is a contract between the past, the present and the future, as per Burke. There is no dictatorship of the present.

arch-conservatives — John

You can remove "arch" because it is simply conservative. No arch needed.

For him tradition is meant to instructive and dictatorial — TheWillowOfDarkness

Cut out dictatorial. There's a difference between it being instructive and respected, and it being dictatorial. You don't seem to be able to see that.

It's meant to be the becon of imagine which defines what we aspire to — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is true.

We are no longer understand ourselves to be destined for anything. Marriage is no longer forever. Family is understood to be breakable (to pick one of Agustino's favourites). The vision of the necessarily perfect life has been lost. It's no longer there to define the lives of some and act as the fiction which hides when we are less than perfect. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Let me re-edit this. "We no longer understand the perennial aspects of reality and of ourselves. Marriage is no longer forever. Family is understood to br breakable. The vision of the perfect life has been lost. It's no longer there to help define our lives and guide them when they are less than perfect". Now I agree :D

Sin has no future consequence for the integrity of one's worth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it does.

Liberalism amounts to accepting or even celebrating living imperfections — TheWillowOfDarkness

Moral laxity is no different from immorality.

In liberalism, the ability to call for the destruction of those who sin is lost. It's this which Agustino despises most. Philosophy is unable to form a culture which veiws sin and worth as mutually exclusive. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is false. It's not about calling for their destruction, as for calling for the destruction of such behaviour and the reform of people who commit it. That's what moral education is.